A variety of designs exist for roof vents. Recently, the use of a "ridge type" vent has become popular. That type of design reduces the number of roof penetrations necessary to achieve adequate venting. Also, it allows placement of the vent at the upper reaches of the attic space, thus enhancing the exit of any warmed air which may tend to accumulate in the attic space below the roof.
Unfortunately, many of the vent designs currently available for such ridge type service are unduly complex to manufacture. Further, many of the heretofore available designs known to us take up an undesirable volume for shipment. Many of the ridge type vent designs currently available do not provide what I consider to be an adequate system of barriers against windblown debris, insects, or vermin. Therefore, a continuing demand exists for a simple, and inexpensive ridge type roof vent. More particularly, there exists a demand for a ridge type roof vent which has reduced shipping volume, and which provides a good barrier for protection against debris, insects, and vermin. Moreover, significant improvements can still be made in the design of a ridge type vent that can be inexpensively produced, easily stored and shipped, which provides a good debris barrier, and which can be installed with minimal training and expense by unskilled or semi-skilled workmen.
Many roof vents of the character described above which provide the general capabilities desired have heretofore been proposed. Those of which I am aware are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos.: 4,924,761, issued May 15, 1990 to MacLeod et al. for ROOF VENT; 4,817,506, issued Apr. 4, 1989 to Cashmann for ROOF VENT; 4,643,080 issued Feb. 17, 1987 to Trostle et al. for ROOF RIDGE VENTILATOR SYSTEM; 4,642,958 issued Feb. 17, 1987 to Pewitt for VENTILATED WALL AND ROOFING SYSTEM; 4,545,291, issued Oct. 8, 1985 to Kutsch et al. for ROOFLINE VENTILATORS; 4,325,290 issued Apr. 20, 1982 to Wolfert for FILTERED ROOF RIDGE VENTILATOR; 4,280,399 issued Jul. 28, 1981 to Cunning for ROOF RIDGE VENTILATOR; 3,660,955 issued May 9, 1972 to Simon for STRUCTURE FOR PROVIDING AIR CIRCULATION AT THE ROOF OF A BUILDING; 3,236,170 issued Feb. 22, 1966 to Meyer et al. for VENTILATED ROOF CONSTRUCTION; 1,896,656 issued Feb. 7, 1933 to Anderson for ASSEMBLY OF METAL SURFACES; 1,785,682 issued Oct. 22, 1928 to Hamiliton for WINDOW VENTILATOR; West German Patent No. 3,320,850 issued December 1984 to CPMC; and West German Patent No. 36 15 015.0-25 issued December 1987 to Knoche.
For the most part, the documents identified in the preceding paragraphs disclose devices which have one or more of the following shortcomings: (a) they are difficult or bulky to package, (b) their design is more complicated than is desirable, and as a result, (c) they are relatively expensive to manufacture.
One of the most common deficiencies of the heretofore available roof vent designs of which I am aware, the relative complexity of the design, is primarily due to the type of airflow structure provided. Also, some designs, such as that shown in the MacLeod patent, require the insert of some barrier material to restrict the entry of insects and vermin. Such a barrier reduces venting efficiency and is also subject to becoming clogged or plugged over the life of the device, thus leading to reduced efficiency. Also, some prior art roof vents have gutter like projections from beneath the shingles which detracts from the visual appearance of the vent, as well as accumulates unwanted debris. Thus, the advantages of the compact, arched and visually pleasing, straight through airflow grille design of our easily manufactured roof vent are important and self-evident.